~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Justice for the Vicar of Stiffkey

I see the Church of England has thrown Bishop Bell to the wolves – one allegation of sexual misconduct with a child and he’s busted. That’ll teach anyone to stand out for their principles and oppose area bombing in a war where to do so singled him out for abuse from the press – best stick with the consensus – after all, what else is the C of E for? If we’re house-clearing for the C of E, it’s clearly time now for it to make a handsome apology to Harold Davidson, the Vicar of Stiffkey, who didn’t, it seems do anything more than try to rescue prostitutes and fall foul of a bad-tempered old Bishop of Norwich.

Despite being based out on the North Norfolk coast where he was supposed to be ministering to the locals, Davidson decided his real calling was in Soho, where he became known as the ‘Prostitutes’ Padre’. When he was eventually charged with committing ‘immoral acts’ in 1932, the Press had a field day. On the one side were a set of charges which showed that, at the least, Davidson had behaved unwisely and gained himself a reputation as a ‘sex pest’ in Soho where, as we would now surely admit, he had simply been trying to understand the lives of the local sex workers? But to the press of the day this was not clear, any more than it was to the Consistory Court, which took the judgmental view that a photo of the rector with a young woman showing her bare backside to the photographer suggested he was guilty as charged; how judgmental of them? Perhaps she was cold and he was just clothing the naked?

Poor old Davidson, after his defrocking, protested his innocence and raised money to pay his legal bills by exhibiting himself in shows at Blackpool in a barrel, and later, at Skegness, posing with lions in a cage. When the inevitable happened, Davidson went to a version of a martyr’s death; he should surely be recognised as a martyr to the cause of progressive Christianity?

It more than time that the C of E reexamined this scandalous miscarriage of justice. It’s pretty clear that some of the girls were lying, and there’s every reason for the Church to reexamine the case, admit it got it wrong, and do justice to poor old Davidson. It may, of course, be that he actually believed in the literal truth of the Resurrection, but that was not uncommon then, even in the C of E, and it should be overlooked in favour of the fact he was a victim of persecution by Norfolk toffs and narrow-minded clergymen. He was a victim of prejudice, and even if he was not up with the latest thinking that there is nothing from which sex workers need rescuing, he had a clear leaning to the poor and needy.

Who are we to judge? If a Rector based in Norfolk wants to spend his week ends in Soho helping sex workers, who’d be narrow-minded enough to say he’d be better off doing his day job? It is another example of the need for historical justice – don’t know about ‘Rhodes must fall’, but ‘Harold must rise’ seems to be the way to go.

Indeed so, Geoffrey. Seems the worst thing that could be said of the man was that he had not been instructed to avoid stepping on the tails of lions. Today, had he lived, he more likely would have been convicted of animal cruelty.

Nowadays the police, and the churches for that matter, seem more interested in the possible crimes of dead people than in whatever is going on under their noses.

I always thought that history was the job of historians, and preventing crime was the job of the authorities, but perhaps I should buy Prof. C a policeman’s helmet as this may help him to become an even better historian.

Well, sort of, my friend. In truth, if a free country the police aren’t there to prevent crime, that’s the community’s job. They are there to apprehend those who commit crimes, as we have delegated that power to them, since we think we need specialists to do it, just as we have delegated to the military the right to defend us (mostly).

Still, I think you, and we, have enough current crime that the police should have plenty to do, without poaching on the historians. It’s hard to see what the point is, going after dead people, and there should be a better use for our money.

I’m not sure. Think of all the old cold case files that could be pinned on the dead and cleared from the desks of the detectives. And since dead people don’t get a proper trial with lawyers and such, It might save us a bunch of money. The tabloids can sell their papers and the historians can sell oodles of books. Sounds like a win-win to me. 🙂

That hasn’t stopped the British Government commissioning a huge and costly public enquiry into ‘historical child abuse’ – I think just about everybody involved in the BBC light entertainment section has been locked up – but the dead are still being pursed. Good job there’s no real crime being committed any more in the UK.

I was staying in the nearby village of Morston about ten years ago on holiday, and we went out to Stiffkey. When some of the older locals heard why we’d gone there, they talked about their memories and those of their parents, and there was a clear feeling locally that he was more of a foolish man than a rogue, and that he’d been hard done by.

Reminds me of a time traveling with an American evangelist in UK one church we visited had a congregation in Soho that worked with the sex worker. Some of them agreed with the local Christians to a visit from us and during our conversations with them they turn away a number of potential clients.

Also earlier today we had a phone call from UK a young lady we know had been beaten up by her boyfriend. We were spending the day with a doctor who determined from her symptoms that she had a broken or sprained rib and some other issues. A second call from one of our employees informed us she had spoken to the police about the crime. The police would take no action as the victim must first make a complaint. However the victim is too fearful to do so. This lack of police response seem to be nonsense to me – We will continue to do all the remote follow up and assist where we can.

It is, but it isn’t, Rob. Without a complainant, they have no chance whatever of a conviction. And frankly that’s the way it should be. But and it’s a big one, they should be able to protect her, and that she doesn’t think so is a blot on their reputation, or should be.

A crime has been committed it is not a civil matter – there are others who can give evidence on the crime – I do not see why they need a complaint from the victim. I am aware that the process followed is as you describe – but if the young lady is eventually murdered she will not be able to bring a complaint then either – but then when it is too late the police will act.

Yes, and they need enough evidence to have probable cause to make an arrest, and hearsay is not admissible. The rule remains, and must, “innocent until proven guilty”. Anything else, is not the rule of law, but a lynch mob.

This is not the first incident or even the second time this man has beaten this girl up badly. My view is that as the victim is too fearful to make a complaint the police should attempt to put the evidence together from other sources that have reported the crime to them.

Bell sounds like Pell. That reminds me, 60 Minutes showd a Pell interview where he was caught lying over and over again. Pell offerd abuse victims 50 thousand dollars and swore them to secrecy. He denied it but the show had documents. Pell and a man named Ridgeway went to seminary together and lived in the same house with him for 10 yrs and came up the ranks with him. Ridgeway was molesting his own nephew and the nephew told Pell, way back in the 90s. 10 yrs later Ridgeway was busted and Pell claimed he didn’t know anything about it. The Vatican rewarded Pell with a archbishop title and a cushy job. Well done thou faithful servant.

Bell sounds like Pell – what an idiot you are – you’ve no idea who bell was, but it sounds like one of your obsessions. You know what they say about men who obsess about queers don’t you Bosco? Missing the bath houses are you?

I was not going to comment on here again till after Easter. The horror that took place in Belgium today doesn’t really matter much, it seems, looking at the absence of any mention of it here.

Keep on with the lovely anecdotes. I’m cancelling all my Easter travel plans. All flights cancelled. We cannot feel safe any more. But here we keep on with our spiritual anecdotes, while the Muslim war on Europe blasts the intestines out of travellers.

Either we declare war on Islam, with extreme prejudice, or we die.

OK. Gareth does his weird comment… Now just carry on with your lovely anecdotes.

Good point, though perhaps others like myself had not even turned on the television or the radio yet. I did not hear about this because I found things to read other than the news this morning. But you are right . . . this is horrific and I will simply echo what Barnhardt is apending to all her conversations:

Dave – yes, Islam must be destroyed; the question is: how? From a Christian point of view, which methods would Jesus endorse?

Those who carried out these atrocities are my enemies; I use European airports to travel from one place to another (and have passed through Brussels); anyone who thinks that I am expendable as ‘collateral damage’ in their war against Europe is my enemy and has ‘cursed’ me.

What does ‘forgiveness’ mean in this context? How does Matthew 5v44 apply?

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

How does Romans 12 apply – Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

What is our approach?

I’d say that, to some extent, the Western allies have been playing a similar game. I don’t think that your average Iraqi had much of a say in who governed the country; most of them were trying their best to live ordinary decent respectable lives. In 1992, the Americans and British decided to carpet bomb them, using depleted uranium, leading to substantially increased cancer risk in that area (to those who weren’t killed). I remember the reasons given: ‘oh, the Iraqi forces have these super-duper shelters and the carpet bombing isn’t doing them any harm’ which turned out to be rubbish. Also, Blair’s statement that Saddam Hussein could assemble a chemical weapon in 45 minutes turned out to be rubbish. The military intervention made the country much less stable and led to an awful lot of casualties among innocent civilians.

Two wrongs don’t make a right; I have no sympathy with anybody who considers me (or people like me – trying to live a decent life in a situation which I don’t have much choice or influence over the government or decisions made by the government); these people are my enemies; they have cursed me.

What is the Christian response to this? What methods has Jesus endorsed for destroying Islam?

To start with, I suppose I would not invite my enemies to come and live with me. I would try to separate cultures that cannot possibly live together as the Hebrews were commanded to separate themselves from pagan idol worshippers. Until recently, that was the way it was in the West. After 9/11 we are acting as if we are frightened of these folks and don’t wish to offend them. Let them go back to their homelands and stop this peaceful invasion of theirs . . . which hasn’t been so peaceful. You blow up military targets no matter where you find them: as they have declared war on us and Israel and we should not stop until the enemy is thoroughly defeated. The ordinary peaceful folks may eventually have enough courage to stand up to the thugs that run their countries and the their lives and many may actually turn from this false religion of hate. Its always a hard thing to put straight once pandora’s box has been opened . . . but we have to try. What we are doing now is clearly no working.

Dave – your ‘to start with’ depends on national governments, which are not under your control. Of course, as Christians, we should advise the government what to do, but we shouldn’t expect government to listen. In fact, it’s as clear as a bell that governments have deliberately allowed many people with an anti-Christian agenda into nominally ‘Christian’ countries in order to undermine the Christian ‘ethos’. The government is not our friend.

We are living for Christ in a pagan world – and, as Christians our governments are broadly against us rather than for us. What is the Christian attitude towards our enemies? In this context, our enemies, those who have cursed us, are those who refused to condemn this atrocity outright.

What has happened in formerly Christian countries is a very interesting question – why is Scotland, a land that was so spiritually blessed back at the beginning of the 20th century so spiritually forsaken now? I have my own thoughts on this. But you can’t start by saying, ‘first, I would like my national government to do such-and-such’ because your national government no longer represents you; you are living for Christ in a pagan world.

That is true, Jock. But then again, we saw the reluctance of Christians against all wars of recent memory. The Christians in my country were convinced that the evil needed to be confronted during WWII due to the attack on Pearl Harbor; though it killed far fewer than did 9/11 and wounded far less. Not only that, but 9/11 was the killing of innocent non-combatants. The confusion arises today because it is not an enemy that fights like any enemy we had in the past. But they are as ideologically disposed as Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan.

The difference in my mind as to how we ‘do’ war is that we try to minimize civilian casualties if possible (thus we invented accurate bombs to target only that which we want to destroy) and that we have the will (though not the money, since we are 19 trillion dollars in debt) to rebuild their countries once the battles are over. We help rebuild, reshape, feed, provide health care etc. I don’t think any other civilization has done more for their defeated enemies than we do today. The problem here is, as you say, how do we defeat this enemy which seems to be hiding in our own backyards?

The issue as I see it is about who is ‘The we’. I support Jock’s view of the actions that Christians should take and not take. But as far as the state goes we are told it bears the sword in order to establish justice and protect its people.

I came in here today to see if anyone mentioned the bombing, but no. So I didn’t mention it either. Maybe someone can help me out. What does Islam have against Brussels? The religion of peace. Those poor souls that were killed and hurt….for what? This is Americas fault. We bombed Iraq into the stone age, and 100,000 woman and children. For what? Now the muslim world has it in for the west. I don’t blame them

You don’t blame them? You said it, Bosco, you bastard: it’s “America’s fault”. There is no history of Islamic suprfemacy in Europe here, becausew you neberr read about that. You ignoramus. NO. iT’S ALL YOUR COUNTRY’S FAULT. So when children get their intestoines blown out and sprayed aqll over a wallin Paaris by some JIHADI NUTTER, that’s all America’s fault? Yes?

What brought that all on? I put the blame on the American oil industry and you get all upset. I think you’ve got some screw loose good brother. This is war. We bombed Iraq , now they carry the war to our doorsteps. I don’t agree with them killing civilians. I don’t support anyone killing anybody. Good thing the Lord is going to shorten these days or no flesh would survive.

Do you think that America owns all the oil companies in the world and do you really think that these wars were over oil? Talk about having a screw loose; you ought to look on the floor for them . . . yours have completely fallen out.

Yes, it’s terrible, and I pray for them all. But I got to say, if Europe can’t get its head out of the sand and defend itself, well, why should I think we have to save them for the fourth time in a hundred years. Europe isn’t Moslem because you stopped them at Vienna and Lepanto. If you decide to do it again, we can talk about helping (once we find a leader with some guts) until then, it’s simply crying over spilled milk.

Yes, the war was over oil. Its all about oil. Ask yourself…how does ISIS support itself. It sells oil at a discount. The US went into Iraq to secure oil interests. Saddam was just a ruse. Russia is just one big gas station. Oil moves the world.

Think about it you idiot. If it was about oil we would have taken over the oil fields in Iraq and not only paid for our cost in carrying out the war but paid for the reconstruction of Iraq as well. In fact, we should have . . . but we didn’t. Every country in Europe is dependent on oil from the Middle East as well.

Also, all of the major oil companies are multi-national companies. They have nothing to do with fighting wars. They have been gambling with the risks of doing business in these countries for years and yet it is a commodity that the world needs and the Middle East seems to have an abundance of for the time being. So we have a business relationship built on survival of our cultures . . . it is not uncommon. They need us and we need them . . . although at this time, if Obama would let us get at our resources we could cut all ties to them any time we want. If you do not think that the World Trade Center and their attack on America didn’t spawn this, then you are sadly mistaken.

I’ll let you get back to listen to your favorite radio station, Coast to Coast, now.

Arabs didn’t take down the towers….the US military did. Now, don’t take my word for anything. You tube or where ever, take a look at the plane that hit the second tower. They have close ups of it. Its a military plane. Explosions were in the basement. The beams were being cut. ….a controlled demolition.
The building fell as fast as if you dropped a golf ball. And, in a video, you can see thermite spitting out of the building, below the fire. I didn’t believe it at first….a friend had to show me these videos. See if you can find pics of the Pennsylvania crash site. No plane debris, at all. Take a look at the pentagon hit. No airliner parts, no bodies, no luggage, and the hole was round and small….no evidence of the wings hitting the building. If that’s not enough, go you tube and type in building 7. A 43 story building, perfectly fine. Its was brought down demo style, like the 2 towers. You can see the puffs from the charges go down the sides of the building rite befor it came down. Why do that building? It had cia and fbi and Enron offices in it and a paper trail of wrongdoing by Bush and his boys. Ask youself this question…why did Bush keep saying how proud he was for cleaning up the towers debris in record time, fast as possible. I heard him say it plenty of times on the news. Did it occur to you that this was the largest crime scene in US history? You don’t hurry and ship it all to japan. You let investigators investigate. Bush didn’t want investigators seeing that it was a controlled demolition. The owner of the towers, a friend of Bushs, insured the towers for twice the amount, a few weeks befor the demo. You should have seen him smile from ear to ear when a court granted him the money. Its all on video.

That’s what I first said. I remember the 11th. I woke up late, at 10 am. Turned on the TV and saw this mess. They showd the Pennsylvania site…..my first thought was…..where are the plane parts and the luggage and bodies. But I believed the news report and figured that maybe the plane is buried or something. I kept believeing it for many yrs until a friend showd me the videos again, but with sensible insight. There are no plane parts because it wasn’t a plane.

Do you see airplane parts….luggage, bodies? A jumbo jet leaves a pretty hefty debris field.

Good grief Bosco, get a grip. This photo proves nothing. Can you date it? Taken on Sept 11? There were cranes conveniently located at the site on the day of the crash? Could this be days later when bodies and large debris were already removed?

Mayor Juliani , moments befor the demo, that they were going to “pull ” that building. Later he denied ever saying that. Building 7 had the CIA and FBI and Enron offices and a computer and paper trail of the planning of 9/11 and Bushes involvement in Enron. These are not nice people.

News reports were fed to the media on what to say. The whole thing was planned. You own BBC was told what to say, but it released a story befor they were supposed to. Building 7 hadn’t collapsed yet but they reported it as having come down. Now just how did they know 7 was going to come down?

You can see building 7 behind her on her monitor. It hadn’t collapsed yet, but she said it had. How much more does one need?

Good brother Zeke, this is the day of the attack. Where is the jumbo jet pieces? They should be all over the place. It was hit with a scud missle.the above photo was the day of the crash . People can call me all kinds of names. But where is the plane?

Did I call you a name? The difference between you and me is that I do not get my “facts” from conspiracy websites and videos. I also don’t pretend to know what happened to the plane and don’t have a need to conclude that by looking at a photo that a plane is not involved in this tragedy. My persoal opinion is that the plane and all on born were shattered, I believe the term is vaporized by the impact and heat of the fire. You have to admit that this is a possibility. Did they retrieve pieces of the planes that hit the World Trade Center? No, because there was nothing to retrieve from the impact and fire. Have you tried presenting your scud missle theory to families of people who died on the plane? Or perhaps they were also in cohoots with the government to cover up the “facts” as you see them? I will not clutter this comment thread any further with my opinion on this topic. I will leave you with one more article that might help you gain a more balanced view of these events.http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

I didn believe it at first either. How could our own govt do this? Its not possible.
Good brother Zek, did you even read the article you put up? A reporter asked the fire chief….wheres the 757? The chief said he didn’t know. The article says…maybe( it uses the word maybe a lot) the 757 scrunched itself up and all of it went onto that one little hole and vaporized.The wingspan of the jet would take up the entire length of the part of the building in the picture. You want me to get a grip? If a cotton pickin 757 hit that building, you wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Maybe I should get a grip and believe what the Bush administration says. Not one shred of a 757. A few whistle blowers have vanished.

PS good brother Zek, an airliner crash isn’t removed as fast as possible. The NTSB crawls over it for weeks. AND, news crews were there minutes after the crash….live coverage….no plane parts observed then. Im not blaming you. I had a hard time coming to grips myself.

gOOD BROTHER zEK, no need to reply. I take it that you are a run of the mill pedestrian. No prob. No airliner has ever evaporated on impact, no matter how violent the crash. Aluminum and other metals and human bodies don’t evaporate that easy. They never have and never will, no matter how low your learning curve is. No plane parts were recoverd at the twin towers because the Bush administration sealed it off and got rid of all the evidence. This is documented. Believe me, I had a hard time believing this myself.

PS… thanks for your link. It says nothing about how people and luggage and seats and tail sections evaporate on impact. They don’t. But don’t let that get in the way of Geo Washington chopping down a cherry tree.

Bosco, you sure are good at making it difficult not to reply to your nonsense.

As you so rightly point out, Vaporization is the wrong word, my bad. I don’t pretend to be a scientist. The plane disintegrated into small fragments and burned, as can be seen by the following animation which I post for the benefit of anyone who would like to know the truth of this matter.

Another thing, Bosco. With your nonsense you dishonor the memory of those who experienced a horrifying death on flight 77, their families, and those who have served our country with honor.

Small fragments burned. When a plane crashes, fragment go all over the place. They don’t burn. The gas In the tank blows up. Aluminum doesn’t catch fire. The vid in your cartoon doesn’t show a 757. The parts shown are the engine of a scud missile., not the giant 757 engines. But, I too didn’t believe it. I only got into this because good brother Servis called me out on it.

Oh uh, in finale, the pentagon was hit one half hour after the towers. The pentagon IS the most protected airspace on earth. Do you really think a jumbo jet would escape notice heading for the pentagon? Reinhard Heydrick used to say…..the more outlandish the act, the more people will refuse to believe it.

Gareth – well, I hadn’t commented on it because I’ve more or less stopped commenting here. There are plenty of other forums where the matter is being discussed.

don’t think anybody is stopping you from putting up a post on this subject, particularly if you are able to tie it in with the words of the apostle: ‘Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I can’t do this – I’d have no idea what to write.

Also – there is no difference between this and the Irish terrorists (for example Omagh bombing 1998) – except that the Muslims seems to be better at it.

Some people publish posts about donkeys before news of the terrorist attack broke, others publish posts about justice after the news of the terrorist attack broke. There is a world of difference in that.

Rob – I don’t seem to be getting the email updates, so don’t have the ‘reply’ option, so this isn’t in the sequence.

You have to be a bit careful about ‘the state bears the sword ….’ in this context. Yes, this is true. But when Paul wrote this, he was living under some of the vilest rulers imaginable. I suppose the worst came after Paul wrote these words – but it was bad enough.

In Paul’s context, the rulers, ‘the state’ are unwillingly, rather than willingly, doing the will of the Lord, just as Satan, acting within the limitations that God set him, set Job exactly the trial that the Lord had willed for him.

‘The State’ in some abstract sense does bear the sword; this does not excuse individuals (such as Tony Blair) who claim to be Christians and then get the state to make decisions based on giving parliament a pack of lies.

I agree the invasion of Saddam was based on the claim of weapons of mass destruction that were never found. The instability and rise of ISIS post war is a worse state than pre war in my view. One of our managers is a Kurdish Catholic she had to escape Saddam’s Iraq some years before the war nevertheless she always told us things will be even worse if they get rid of Saddam..

Rob – I had very similar conversations, with other people in a different context. For example – I fell into conversation with an Iraqi student in my statistics class (training to become a teacher). He explained that he had been kicked out of Iraq due to the fact that he had been a political activist. Nevertheless, even though he had every reason to hate the regime (on account of the fact that they had kicked him out of his own country simply for expressing political views), he thought that the American / British invasion was a catastrophe which would make things much, much worse. I had this conversation while the invasion was still taking place.

The Iraqis didn’t want the invasion – not even those who were viscerally opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime (and I understood from this fellow that the overwhelming majority of them were opposed to Saddam Hussein).

Leaders such as Saddam were despots Nevertheless some of what they held in check was even worse that their own regimes. Many of the nationals are well aware of this prior to the invasion and knew how precarious their situation would become in the event of it. But the West thought it knew better.

(reply 2) – so then, abstracting a little and looking at general principles, how do you reconcile Paul’s approach to the governing authorities, ‘the state bears the sword’, with the fact that the governing authorities sometimes do the most terrible and atrocious things? Also – in the current situation – how does international law fit into this? e.g. if my memory serves me correctly, the UN council did not endorse the second Iraq war.

States may be good, indifferent or despotic but are frequently better than anarchy.

I think Paul was trusting in the providence of God and was advising Christians to follow good social behaviour and to and obedience towards the state as long as it did not involve a denial of their duty towards God. If the state demands an obedience we cannot comply with we react like the apostles in Acts and bear the consequences.

International law is a valuable corrective to national abuse but frequently does not have the teeth to enforce it. That might be for the best as if an international /global agency had the power of force available to it woe betide us if it was corrupt – no one would have anywhere to flee.

I do not expect answers for the political or civil sphere but our democratic systems for the most part avoids government moving to extremes at least in matters related to their own electorate.

Yes – I think I agree with all of this. The key for our personal attitude is 12v18 ‘If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ This is the basic Christian attitude. At some stage, though, it is no longer possible; we cannot overlook a moral outrage against our fellow man, at which stage we say ‘We must obey God rather than men’.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris